Interventionism and Relativism. That’s Today’s European Union

READ ORIGINAL VERSION (IN SPANISH) IN RELIGIÓN EN LIBERTAD

Every year, on 9th May, it’s celebrated the Europe’s Day, an ephemeris which is the only official celebration of the European Union (EU).

We are talking about an entity that does not have much popularity today. Everyone has their own reasons to be, at least, critical enough. Nevertheless, I am not going to enquire into else’s thinking, but to indicate that, last year,  according to a report of Pew Research Centre, just a 51 per cent of Europeans would support a remain and that, in comparison with 2014 data, less than the half of Spaniards, Britons and Frenchman have that position.

As it’s already known, we do not talk about a single union of countries to guarantee among them the free trade of goods, capitals, merchandises and people (Schengen Treaty is an independent matter), but about a supra-State project addressed to the idea of Single European State, with single currency, without internal borders, with an own legislative power that attempts to drive away national sovereignty of member States, apart from being a trail of subventions, something demonstrate with the tariffs for external markets and programs like Common Agrarian Policy.

Nevertheless, not all is Economy. There’s also interest in imposing the ideology of gender and multiculturalism. Brussels politbureau disapproves conservative leaning of Polish and Hungarian governments regarding pro-life and pro-family causes. Then, Hungarian Prime Minister is totally demonised for asking the following of law regarding the crisis of so-called “refugees” and refusing Hungary admission of Muslim immigrants, with the intention of preserving the Western cultural legacy (in economical issues, both Orban and, specially, Szydlo and Kaczynski, deserve to be criticised because of considerable interventionism).

In addition, it’s possible to warn about the avoidance of written consideration about the foundation of those liberties Europeans enjoy to greater or lesser extent. The flawed project of European Constitution eluded any mention of Christianism (the most prosecuted religion in the world). But not only that, because the Italian Christian democrat Rocco Buttiglione could not achieve being European Commissioner just for being Catholic). So we can affirm relativism is the rule in such institutions that are also agents of political correctness dictatorship.

There is a social democrat and progressive consensus among the main pro-EU parties, endorsed by Party of European SocialistsEuropeans People Party (except FIDESZ) and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats of Europe. Politicians like Federica Mogherini, Jean Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, who are relevant members of pro-EU establishment, demonstrate they do not set their sights high. They do not assume the need of undertake certain rectifications. They rather rant against anybody that supposes a hit against political correctness, independently from their eligibility. 

Tusk considered Donald Trump as a danger for Europe and Juncker accused Orban to be a dictator. Meanwhile, Mogherini considers anti-Israel boycotts fall under freedom of expression and winking at Fidel Castro, to whom Juncker considered a “hero for many”. By the way, it’s important to highlight the vengeful and foolish consideration of Luxembourgian, according to that, English is losing importance in Europe, as a way to despise the free will of British citizens.

Once I have criticised both the current functioning and the fact eurocrats sights don’t set high, we have to say that, although it’s true this structure should had never gone far from the consolidation of a free circulation area, Austrian economist Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom that international and supranational entities always tend to reach more power, so, reversibility seems to be impossible.

So, what should be the alternative? A leave of European Union does not have to be automatically understood as a bet on isolationism and absolute autarkic protectionism, but on respect towards subsidiarity principle. Nevertheless, somebody could wonder what would happen with free trade, the circulation of European citizens and the single currency.

Regarding trade, we have to say every State could and ought to decree unilaterally the commercial freedom, without making CETA mistakes (those agreements are positive, but fail because they maintain tariffs for external markets and harmonise regulations). Remember only free trade could end with poverty in Third World.

Regarding free movement of European citizens, we have to say a State is as free to execute its right to control their borders ad to not ask Europeans for visa and restricting Muslim immigration (in other terms, a right to control immigration and entrances and exits in their borders).

Regarding the single currency (not all EU countries use it and not its users are members of this), we have to recognise that, according to the Austrian School professor Huerta de Soto, has avoided monetary nationalism that promotes undisciplined attitudes of political-economic agents. For all these reasons, it’s too less bad than national currencies. For sure, in addition to the claim of end of legal tender, we have to propose alternatives to Euro, which must be based on gold pattern or another kind of private currency, like Bitcoin or Hayek

Once these clarifications have been made, in relation to alternative blocks, I bet on joining the European Association of Free Trade (EFTA), integrated by Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It’s only requested free trade among their fellows. For the rest of matters, each country has sovereignty to adopt their own decisions. 

Backing to the related with pro-EU establishment, foster of that political correctness that’s causing many ravages in the continent, it’s important to highlight enemies of freedom like Russian president, Vladimir Putin, a dictator that does not believe in values (only in power) cannot be rather than social democrat consensus anyway.

At the same time, we have to remember it’s not necessary any supranational institution to defend our values. I agree with Benedict XVI, who stressed in December 2012 that “one should not envisage a superpower, concentrated in the hands of the few […] rather that such an authority should be understood primarily as a moral force […] or rather as a participatory authority”.

Once I’ve told all this, we have to take into account that attacking subsidiarity principle, contemplated in Catholic Social Teaching, there’s also an attack to Western Values.